Share this story

Further Reading

A Sacramento, California, man was sentenced Thursday to over three years in prison for unlawful manufacture of a firearm and one count of dealing firearms.

Last year, Daniel Crowninshield pleaded guilty to those counts in exchange for federal prosecutors dropping other charges. According to investigators, Crowninshield, known online as "Dr. Death," would sell unfinished AR-15 lower receivers, which customers would then pay for him to transform into fully machined lower receivers using a computer numerically controlled (CNC) mill. (In October 2014, Cody Wilson, of Austin, Texas, who has pioneered 3D-printed guns, began selling a CNC mill called "Ghost Gunner," designed to work specifically on the AR-15 lower.)

"In order to create the pretext that the individual in such a scenario was building his or her own firearm, the skilled machinist would often have the individual press a button or put his or her hands on a piece of machinery so that the individual could claim that the individual, rather than the machinist, made the firearm," the government claimed in its April 14 plea agreement.

Under federal law, it is allowed to manufacture your own firearm (even with a CNC mill), but it is not allowed to do so for others without proper licensing.

In a Thursday statement, Special Agent in Charge Jill A. Snyder, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said that Crowninshield "owned and operated a machine shop where he allowed customers with unknown backgrounds to use his machinery to unlawfully manufacture firearms for profit. That activity posed a very dangerous threat to the safety of our communities."

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

355 Reader Comments

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

I'm pretty sure a lot of this has to do with the fact he hadn't paid billions in campaign contributions and the salaries of NRA lobbyists like all the other manufacturers.

Dude jumped the line, obviously.

Billions? Ha! You have no idea how cheap it is to buy a politician here. We are probably talking a couple thousand K over the all the years maybe.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

The argument is he didn't help them make their own, he made it for them and sold it to them. That makes him an unlicensed gun manufacturer.

Yeah it's dumb, but Gun control advocates have yet to garner support for changing the Constitution. So they pass as much anti-gun nonsense as possible. Case in point, the Governor of Connecticut is trying to pass a massive spike in gun permit prices (50% increase for background checks, almost 200% increase for pistol permits) ostensibly to "offset the deficit".http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/ ... ermit-fees

Rather blatant really. I imagine lawsuits will ensue if it goes forward.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

Yes, it is legal to build your own firearm. The reason (and I'm simplifying things here) is because it is difficult to build one that is cost effective and safe. Regarding the former, one can buy in the US an AR-15 receiver for dirt cheap, as low as $50 sometimes. AR receivers are so cheap, that the primary reason for building your own is because you do not want a paper trail that connects you and the firearm, or because you are not legally able to purchase one.

Anyway, there is no gray area here: you may not manufacture for sale, and that's exactly what this person did. Just because he had the customer press a button on the CNC machine does not make it legal. Assholes like Daniel Crowninshield are precisely why we can't have nice things, and as a gun owner and 2A support I'm glad he's going to jail.

Most of the people that I know who own AR-15's build them for two reasons:

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

The question is, Mr. Elendig, are you really Random McParanoid? Because you imply that either you must prove you are NOT Random McParanoid to possess a firearm, or in a bit of circular reasoning, you are Random McParanoid BECAUSE you want to possess a firearm.

well they need to close that loop hole, but thats never gonna happen with the NRA in charge of making gun laws.one of my best friends is a felon, with a violent past that collects ghost guns.of course he says they belong to his wife.......yeah right.he has 3 AR-15's that he ordered part by part from the net, then he assembled them in his kitchen.its ridiculous how easy it is for ANYONE to get a gun in this country.

but that will never change as long as the NRA lobbiests are in charge.

you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands........ok, its a deal.

Obviously you don't think felons should have guns, but your final quote came/comes from from law abiding citizens. Seems to me like you have a problem with them owning guns too.

And ironically, he's willing to kill over this belief. Now, who's the nutjob?

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

The argument is he didn't help them make their own, he made it for them and sold it to them. That makes him an unlicensed gun manufacturer.

Yeah it's dumb, but Gun control advocates have yet to garner support for changing the Constitution. So they pass as much anti-gun nonsense as possible. Case in point, the Governor of Connecticut is trying to pass a massive spike in gun permit prices (50% increase for background checks, almost 300% increase for pistol permits) ostensibly to "offset the deficit".http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/ ... ermit-fees

Rather blatant really. I imagine lawsuits will ensue if it goes forward.

It's class warfare, and smacks of the "Saturday night special" laws that were passed in the 1950s and 1960s to keep folks in the ghetto from arming themselves.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

its a war of politics

there are people that dislike the fundamental structure of the USA and, as their political right in the USA, will fight to change it

so you essentially have two sides fighting over ideas, which results in over legislation and ridiculous situations, such as this one

If i take this ruling literally than it means you cant have a business model of renting out modern CNC mills or 3D printers that can print metal parts. Because if you do, than you better have a whole lot of filters to bock 3D shapes that can be used as a receiver.

Or just not sell 80% lowers.

If I go buy a SIG MPX 8" pistol and a stock in the same transaction, the FFL is probably going to ask me not to buy the stock. If I buy the SIG MCX 16" rifle instead, w/ the same stock, no one will even bat an eye. If an ATF agent walked in right then, the store could plausibly say that I was going to put that stock on the rifle, not a pistol.

Of course, now you can just order barrels off the internet instead of taking a hacksaw to your own. You can make a suppressor out of a Maglite and some freeze plugs (read the reviews on Amazon; they're a hoot). And we have an instant background check system that didn't exist when the NFA was passed in the 30s. It's time to revise the nearly century-old NFA - removing suppressors and barrel length restrictions, leaving automatic firearms on the registry, and adding universal background checks would be a good compromise.

Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines are "destructive devices". For this reason they can't be owned by private citizens.

Why not!?

If I keep them in my home for personal protection, why does it matter? Why can't I create a mine field around my house if I want to?

Plus, the whole point of gun ownership is apparently to protect against tyranny. What sort of chance does the rebell alliance have if the tyrant gets drones and rockets, not to mention B2 bombers?

First of all, fragmentation mines don't kill people, people kill people, ok, and the only thing stopping a bad guy with a mortar, is a good guy with a mortar. Now the second amendment says nothing about hand grenades so obviously they should be allowed.

Legalize mortars for personal use. It's time to escalate the situation of we will soon have a world where only the bad guys have rocket launchers and then what? Terrible. And what about the terrorists? Do they care about laws? No. They will come running, rocket launchers waving and now what? With your homemade pea shooter, what are you going to do as the roaring hordes of be-headers approach?

Anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic. So sad.

There are some exceptions. I know after my grandmother's neighbor got his tank confiscated by the ATF after he managed to get ahold of a shell and reload it, and figured out how to recommission the decommissioned gun barrel. It's my personal opinion either civilians shouldn't own tanks, or the government should figure out how to permanently disable the weapons better before they are sold. Tank shells flying across farmland is not a good thing.

No, tank shells flying into town is not a good thing. Someone firing explosive devices in his large, open field should not be the business of the federal government.

We're going to an era when everyone can build their own firearms in their home with the right resources (materials and designs).That's why we need to be greatly educated for that. We really don't need people to run amok with easily accessible killing devices.

Like steak knives, hammers, etc.

The reason he ran amok of the law is simple enough, he was effectively selling firearms (hence his plea deal). This isn't a 2nd amendment issue, this is him bypassing licensing rules for manufacturing firearms which is a whole different ball of string.

Strict reading of the second amendment "... rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...". It says nothing about regulating manufacturers to make sure they meet safety and regulatory criteria (serial numbers, barrel length, registration, semi-auto only, etc) which is well within the right of the state to regulate.

If he was doing all this for free and just helping people finish their parts (or maybe getting paid in beer)? Well, he might have actually gotten away with it as at that point he's not selling anything. However in his case this was quite different as people would bring their 80% finished parts in, pay him money, and have a fully finished 100% lower.

He also had unregistered fully automatic weapons as well. Definitely a no-no.

In this case, he did get what he deserved. He was manufacturing AR15 receivers and finishing receivers for others for pay. That makes him an unregistered, unlicensed manufacturer.

(for the record, I fully support 2nd amendment, with some reasonable restrictions...)

If i take this ruling literally than it means you cant have a business model of renting out modern CNC mills or 3D printers that can print metal parts. Because if you do, than you better have a whole lot of filters to bock 3D shapes that can be used as a receiver.

Or just not sell 80% lowers.

If I go buy a SIG MPX 8" pistol and a stock in the same transaction, the FFL is probably going to ask me not to buy the stock. If I buy the SIG MCX 16" rifle instead, w/ the same stock, no one will even bat an eye. If an ATF agent walked in right then, the store could plausibly say that I was going to put that stock on the rifle, not a pistol.

Of course, now you can just order barrels off the internet instead of taking a hacksaw to your own. You can make a suppressor out of a Maglite and some freeze plugs (read the reviews on Amazon; they're a hoot). And we have an instant background check system that didn't exist when the NFA was passed in the 30s. It's time to revise the nearly century-old NFA - removing suppressors and barrel length restrictions, leaving automatic firearms on the registry, and adding universal background checks would be a good compromise.

no, you're targeting a specific, whereas a ruling can be used over a wide variety of things, such as certain business models, as mentioned

its not as simple as "well just dont make guns"

thats the foot in the door and the reason most rulings are so important

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not specifically say you can make arms but it seems hard to justify the making of arms as restrictable. In order to keep and bear arms someone or ideally many someones need to be able to make them. Were gunsmiths regulated back in the day?

On the other hand it could be viewed as a gun safety issue. We don't want poorly made weapons.

Maybe one of our lurking constitutional lawyers can comment with a realistic opinion.

Maybe you guys at the other side of the ocean should stop revering that mantra of the religion of violence.

People who like gun often have this political conviction called fascism and that is no coincidence.

Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines are "destructive devices". For this reason they can't be owned by private citizens.

Why not!?

If I keep them in my home for personal protection, why does it matter? Why can't I create a mine field around my house if I want to?

Plus, the whole point of gun ownership is apparently to protect against tyranny. What sort of chance does the rebell alliance have if the tyrant gets drones and rockets, not to mention B2 bombers?

First of all, fragmentation mines don't kill people, people kill people, ok, and the only thing stopping a bad guy with a mortar, is a good guy with a mortar. Now the second amendment says nothing about hand grenades so obviously they should be allowed.

Legalize mortars for personal use. It's time to escalate the situation of we will soon have a world where only the bad guys have rocket launchers and then what? Terrible. And what about the terrorists? Do they care about laws? No. They will come running, rocket launchers waving and now what? With your homemade pea shooter, what are you going to do as the roaring hordes of be-headers approach?

Anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic. So sad.

There are some exceptions. I know after my grandmother's neighbor got his tank confiscated by the ATF after he managed to get ahold of a shell and reload it, and figured out how to recommission the decommissioned gun barrel. It's my personal opinion either civilians shouldn't own tanks, or the government should figure out how to permanently disable the weapons better before they are sold. Tank shells flying across farmland is not a good thing.

No, tank shells flying into town is not a good thing. Someone firing explosive devices in his large, open field should not be the business of the federal government.

How does one obey the four rules, particularly "be certain of your target and what is beyond it", with a tank shell?

So, had he done like a two week workshop teaching people to make their own guns and then allowed them to use his machinery that would have probably been legal? It seems difficult to draw a line, but the one the drew here has some jagged edges if you ask me.

i should think he would need to teach them to program the CNC as well. I would probably let him get away with that. As far as anonymous gun ownership, since he is running a business, and I don't see any tax evasion charges.. I assume there is a customer list which could be used to track down the illegally manufactured guns.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

IANAL but I have heard an explanation that this was added in to prevent the central government from killing off the national guards of the states and usurp military power solely for itself.

One of the main reasons was that slave states knew of the feelings about slavery falling out of favor and didn't want to be reliant on a national level militia/military to suppress slave revolts (there had been many already so it was a legit fear of them). The fear whast that If/when the national government decided it didn't want to allow slavery anymore, it would simply not send troops to put the slave revolts down, leaving all the slave owners to their own devices.

Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines are "destructive devices". For this reason they can't be owned by private citizens.

Why not!?

If I keep them in my home for personal protection, why does it matter? Why can't I create a mine field around my house if I want to?

Plus, the whole point of gun ownership is apparently to protect against tyranny. What sort of chance does the rebell alliance have if the tyrant gets drones and rockets, not to mention B2 bombers?

First of all, fragmentation mines don't kill people, people kill people, ok, and the only thing stopping a bad guy with a mortar, is a good guy with a mortar. Now the second amendment says nothing about hand grenades so obviously they should be allowed.

Legalize mortars for personal use. It's time to escalate the situation of we will soon have a world where only the bad guys have rocket launchers and then what? Terrible. And what about the terrorists? Do they care about laws? No. They will come running, rocket launchers waving and now what? With your homemade pea shooter, what are you going to do as the roaring hordes of be-headers approach?

Anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic. So sad.

There are some exceptions. I know after my grandmother's neighbor got his tank confiscated by the ATF after he managed to get ahold of a shell and reload it, and figured out how to recommission the decommissioned gun barrel. It's my personal opinion either civilians shouldn't own tanks, or the government should figure out how to permanently disable the weapons better before they are sold. Tank shells flying across farmland is not a good thing.

No, tank shells flying into town is not a good thing. Someone firing explosive devices in his large, open field should not be the business of the federal government.

How does one obey the four rules, particularly "be certain of your target and what is beyond it", with a tank shell?

Assuming the tank was 'allowed', the owner is still responsible for his actions... the last time someone took a tank on a rampage they were executed on live TV.... I think that's been a pretty good deterrent.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not specifically say you can make arms but it seems hard to justify the making of arms as restrictable. In order to keep and bear arms someone or ideally many someones need to be able to make them. Were gunsmiths regulated back in the day?

So by this logic, since people have the right to take prescription opioid painkillers when needed, and since someone has to actually make the opioids first, it should be OK to start cooking such drugs in your basement and selling them without any interference from the evil state whatsoever.

Does this "logic" sound completely stupid to you? That's because it actually is.

Slippery slope: in order to learn how to make your own weapons you need to research the topic. Are those who post that information online "helping" you make them? It's not like overly ambitious DAs haven't pursued this line of thinking before.

Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines are "destructive devices". For this reason they can't be owned by private citizens.

Why not!?

If I keep them in my home for personal protection, why does it matter? Why can't I create a mine field around my house if I want to?

Plus, the whole point of gun ownership is apparently to protect against tyranny. What sort of chance does the rebell alliance have if the tyrant gets drones and rockets, not to mention B2 bombers?

First of all, fragmentation mines don't kill people, people kill people, ok, and the only thing stopping a bad guy with a mortar, is a good guy with a mortar. Now the second amendment says nothing about hand grenades so obviously they should be allowed.

Legalize mortars for personal use. It's time to escalate the situation of we will soon have a world where only the bad guys have rocket launchers and then what? Terrible. And what about the terrorists? Do they care about laws? No. They will come running, rocket launchers waving and now what? With your homemade pea shooter, what are you going to do as the roaring hordes of be-headers approach?

Anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic. So sad.

There are some exceptions. I know after my grandmother's neighbor got his tank confiscated by the ATF after he managed to get ahold of a shell and reload it, and figured out how to recommission the decommissioned gun barrel. It's my personal opinion either civilians shouldn't own tanks, or the government should figure out how to permanently disable the weapons better before they are sold. Tank shells flying across farmland is not a good thing.

No, tank shells flying into town is not a good thing. Someone firing explosive devices in his large, open field should not be the business of the federal government.

How does one obey the four rules, particularly "be certain of your target and what is beyond it", with a tank shell?

Assuming the tank was 'allowed', the owner is still responsible for his actions... the last time someone took a tank on a rampage they were executed on live TV.... I think that's been a pretty good deterrent.

Not really. Mass shooters, for example, expect to die - and yet we still see mass shootings. Death simply isn't that great of a deterrent.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

It does also contain the (often forgotten) words "well regulated". This seems to make sensible regulations not just allowable, but required. It also seems to disqualify nutjobs that do not want to register for a militia.

Yes but well regulated applies to the militia. It has nothing to do with the people and the arms and the bearing and the tight jeans and cowboy boots.

You, and most people that are anti-gun, simply don't understand what that sentence is saying. The people come before the militia. The people are the militia. That they can then be regulated into a fighting force to defend the country is secondary. The right of the people to bear arms is primary. During the revolution many, if not most, militia were already armed Americans. Also consider that the "security of a free state" includes freedom that could be denied to Americans by their own state. Think about it and look into the history.

Also consider looking into how written English of that period differs to today. Sentences were often long with many preceding points.

If we are being deferential to the age that the document was written, cool! No more AR-15's and semi-automatic pistols for you. Here's your musket. Have fun! (I'm not even against guns in general...)

If i take this ruling literally than it means you cant have a business model of renting out modern CNC mills or 3D printers that can print metal parts. Because if you do, than you better have a whole lot of filters to bock 3D shapes that can be used as a receiver.

Or just not sell 80% lowers.

If I go buy a SIG MPX 8" pistol and a stock in the same transaction, the FFL is probably going to ask me not to buy the stock. If I buy the SIG MCX 16" rifle instead, w/ the same stock, no one will even bat an eye. If an ATF agent walked in right then, the store could plausibly say that I was going to put that stock on the rifle, not a pistol.

Of course, now you can just order barrels off the internet instead of taking a hacksaw to your own. You can make a suppressor out of a Maglite and some freeze plugs (read the reviews on Amazon; they're a hoot). And we have an instant background check system that didn't exist when the NFA was passed in the 30s. It's time to revise the nearly century-old NFA - removing suppressors and barrel length restrictions, leaving automatic firearms on the registry, and adding universal background checks would be a good compromise.

Definitely with you on SBR's and suppressors being removed from the NFA. Not so much machine guns, but I do think the "pre-1986" restriction needs to go if you qualify for it. I'd love a more modern machine gun!

If i take this ruling literally than it means you cant have a business model of renting out modern CNC mills or 3D printers that can print metal parts. Because if you do, than you better have a whole lot of filters to bock 3D shapes that can be used as a receiver.

Or just not sell 80% lowers.

If I go buy a SIG MPX 8" pistol and a stock in the same transaction, the FFL is probably going to ask me not to buy the stock. If I buy the SIG MCX 16" rifle instead, w/ the same stock, no one will even bat an eye. If an ATF agent walked in right then, the store could plausibly say that I was going to put that stock on the rifle, not a pistol.

Of course, now you can just order barrels off the internet instead of taking a hacksaw to your own. You can make a suppressor out of a Maglite and some freeze plugs (read the reviews on Amazon; they're a hoot). And we have an instant background check system that didn't exist when the NFA was passed in the 30s. It's time to revise the nearly century-old NFA - removing suppressors and barrel length restrictions, leaving automatic firearms on the registry, and adding universal background checks would be a good compromise.

no, you're targeting a specific, whereas a ruling can be used over a wide variety of things, such as certain business models, as mentioned

its not as simple as "well just dont make guns"

thats the foot in the door and the reason most rulings are so important

I'm not saying "don't make guns." I'm saying "if you're going to make guns, don't make them for other people" or "if you're going to sell guns, get a FFL, serialize the guns, and transfer them through the legal process."

In order to create the pretext that the individual in such a scenario was building his or her own firearm, the skilled machinist would often have the individual press a button or put his or her hands on a piece of machinery so that the individual could claim that the individual, rather than the machinist, made the firearm,

Whether or not I agree with the core law at issue here, I think the judge in the case made the right decision. It will be interesting to see where the line is set for determining when a firearm is self-manufactured.

By the way, I'm pretty impressed with the quality or most of the posts on the first page (really no jerk gun-nuts or jerk anti-gun nuts). I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that the story was published so early...

With regards to safety, our laws are not sufficient protection on their own as they are only a punitive deterrence. The only real answer to protecting people from violence are police and deputies. Prohibition of anything limits availability and drives up the price, but it doesn't protect us from guns (or drugs or alcohol during prohibition).

well they need to close that loop hole, but thats never gonna happen with the NRA in charge of making gun laws.one of my best friends is a felon, with a violent past that collects ghost guns.of course he says they belong to his wife.......yeah right.he has 3 AR-15's that he ordered part by part from the net, then he assembled them in his kitchen.its ridiculous how easy it is for ANYONE to get a gun in this country.

but that will never change as long as the NRA lobbiests are in charge.

you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands........ok, its a deal.

No, there's actually a very good chance the NRA will back this decision.

The NRA is NOT a gun rights organization. They are a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturer's industry, and nothing more. Allowing people to manufacture and sell guns outside of the current lobbying ecosystem pisses off the established gun manufacturers, who see this as nothing but lost sales for themselves.

Unless this guy has the financial wherewithal to make multi-million dollar contributions to the NRA, he's going to find himself on the opposite side of the NRA's fence, except to the extent that leveraging his case for its public opinion potential aids in boosting sales of guns by licensed manufacturers.

See also "regulatory capture."

The NRA does not represent gun manufacturers, that's the job of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, http://www.nssf.org/ . The NRA represents the millions of gun owners in this country, and it's power comes from individual votes, not a war chest.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

It does also contain the (often forgotten) words "well regulated". This seems to make sensible regulations not just allowable, but required. It also seems to disqualify nutjobs that do not want to register for a militia.

Yes but well regulated applies to the militia. It has nothing to do with the people and the arms and the bearing and the tight jeans and cowboy boots.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not specifically say you can make arms but it seems hard to justify the making of arms as restrictable. In order to keep and bear arms someone or ideally many someones need to be able to make them. Were gunsmiths regulated back in the day?

On the other hand it could be viewed as a gun safety issue. We don't want poorly made weapons.

Maybe one of our lurking constitutional lawyers can comment with a realistic opinion.

My understanding is that the government cannot regulate or restrict a man from creating guns and using them itself. It can, however, regulate the business of selling and dealing firearms. Thus, if I make my own weapon, and use it myself, I'm fine. If I sell it, I'm not. It's this line that this guy crossed by contract manufacturing weapons.

Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines are "destructive devices". For this reason they can't be owned by private citizens.

Why not!?

If I keep them in my home for personal protection, why does it matter? Why can't I create a mine field around my house if I want to?

Plus, the whole point of gun ownership is apparently to protect against tyranny. What sort of chance does the rebell alliance have if the tyrant gets drones and rockets, not to mention B2 bombers?

First of all, fragmentation mines don't kill people, people kill people, ok, and the only thing stopping a bad guy with a mortar, is a good guy with a mortar. Now the second amendment says nothing about hand grenades so obviously they should be allowed.

Legalize mortars for personal use. It's time to escalate the situation of we will soon have a world where only the bad guys have rocket launchers and then what? Terrible. And what about the terrorists? Do they care about laws? No. They will come running, rocket launchers waving and now what? With your homemade pea shooter, what are you going to do as the roaring hordes of be-headers approach?

Anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic. So sad.

In my case I think Americans should at least be able to have the same small arms as an American soldier would have. Automatic rifles and up to 50 BMG. Tens of millions of armed Americans in that manner would be a reasonable deterrent against the military. That said, I'm not too worried about the military. As a 20 year veteran I know that most of our military would be on the side of Americans fighting tyranny. Those in America today introducing tyranny are of the part of the political spectrum that are anti-gun to begin with so they don't worry me too much if there was a civil war or revolution.

"Those in America today introducing tyranny are of the part of the political spectrum that are anti-gun"Not true, well maybe Alt-true.You Americans are quite scary from down here. I just hope you don't ally with Russia, the real Alt-Right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not specifically say you can make arms but it seems hard to justify the making of arms as restrictable. In order to keep and bear arms someone or ideally many someones need to be able to make them. Were gunsmiths regulated back in the day?

On the other hand it could be viewed as a gun safety issue. We don't want poorly made weapons.

Maybe one of our lurking constitutional lawyers can comment with a realistic opinion.

A little background on the Second Amendment.

The colonies were British. There was a long-standing tradition that REQUIRED men from 12-60 to train daily with a long-bow. Standing armies were expensive to maintain, so the notion was to have the citizenry ready to fight an invader (or to be conscripted into the King's army) when needed.

The tradition was to defend the country from outside invaders, or act as an impromptu "standing army" when the country went to war with another country. The nascent United States, having little to no federal budget which was entirely financed by interstate tariffs, could not afford to maintain a standing army. But because of the threats to the citizenry, in the form on indigenous people, and the occasional hostile act from other nations, it was decided that the "longbow" tradition would be enacted and administered by the states.

The "Militia" in the second amendment doesn't mean a standing army. It means the "national guard", which is state-administered except when called upon by the federal government for duties deemed vital to national interests. The "citizen/soldier", essentially. And because any male could be part of that militia (until other regulations came into effect), they had to have their own firearms because the states couldn't afford to arm them, either. So the right to keep and bear was added.

But the part that is overlooked is that these individuals were still highly regulated and disciplined. They had to drill, train and practice regularly - a process that is all but absent in gun owners today. It's also noteworthy to point out that at the time the "arms" available to the citizenry didn't differ significantly from those available to the military - smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets, pistols and swords, essentially. The rate of fire was (at best) four round per minute per weapon ONCE, then a round about every fifteen to twenty seconds from each weapon thereafter if it got reloaded.

The war of 1812 proved the futility of not maintaining a standing army, given that the capital was burned and looted by the British in part because the call-up of the militia took too long to organize and attack. A standing army was then initiated, but the tradition of BYOG persisted until shortly after the Civil War, which proved the stupidity of that policy when the logistics of attempting to provide ammo for the huge variety of weaponry brought to the field became next to impossible to do. By the Spanish-American war, the BYOG policy was all but dead, and was officially cancelled at the start of World War One.

At that point, the purpose of the second amendment was essentially moot, since it was always intended to be a means to protect the nation.

But as the wheels of industry noted that the need for personal firearms diminished, moneyed interests had to come up with a new rationalization to maintain the idea that having a firearm in the home was actually "defending" something (when, in fact, according to the CDC, it's much more likely to see someone in the home be killed with it, than ever be used in defense. This is unsurprising since the majority of firearms deaths are suicide.). Thus arose the NRA on the pretext that it was teaching gun safety (which it did, but it also became an gun industry advocacy group and lobby against any kind of gun regulation at all).

Today's America sees far less need for personal firearms - especially for defense. But the gun interests would paint an entirely different, and wholly unwarranted, picture. Bad things happen to people, yes. But they don't happen nearly as much as they used to, and the hue and cry raised by gun advocates about "taking away their guns!!!!!" is a red herring.

I wouldn't advocate just taking away anyone's gun, but I would advocate that in order to keep it, one must regularly prove they are proficient and responsible. Failing that, I would argue that anyone who demonstrates any form of irresponsibility - from accidentally killing someone to merely standing in a line to shoot with a loaded weapon - be prohibited from gun ownership for a period of no less than one year and up to a life-time restriction, and must pass a proficiency and responsibility test before being allowed to own one again (assuming they're eligible for ownership).

If the point of gun ownership is now "personal defense", then those who wish to keep and bear have a responsibility to their fellow citizens to do it right. Buying a gun doesn't confer any special abilities. Owning a gun doesn't magically imbue the owner with new knowledge. It takes training, practice and constant vigilance to be a responsible citizen who owns a gun.

The problem we have with firearms today is that most gun owners would fail the test of responsibility in some way. Most infractions don't harm anyone. But 100,000 Americans are shot each year by other Americans, and about 18000 of them die (the other 18000 kill themselves). (Figures are average with differences from year to year, trending upward over the last twenty years). It's been proven that those who live in states with a larger than average number of gun owners risk a nine times greater chance of being shot than those who live in states with a smaller than average number of gun owners.

This is on the gun owners. They're not stepping up and being responsible citizens. We don't let babies play with dynamite because they don't know what they're doing. Without proper training, and practice and repeated exposure to good gun safety, people who own guns become complacent and even contemptuous of their firepower, and that results in unintentional discharges that can destroy lives.

That has to stop. We don't NEED to regulate guns. We need to regulate their owners. It says so right in the second amendment.

Oh, and for the record, the federal government has weapons that are orders of magnitude greater than anything the citizenry can legally obtain. The notion that the government lives in fear of an armed citizenry is a lie. In looking at insurrection in modern history, the only ones which succeeded did so with the aid of a foreign state. And even then, it's not a sure thing. The United States won because France and England were at war at the same time, and France decided to help us (thanks to Ben Franklin, actually). During the civil war, even with parity in the arms between citizenry and military, the south LOST in part because their foreign aid from Britain was mostly successfully blockaded by the North (The industrialized north had better arms production, which was likely the most telling factor).

Today, no insurrection against a nation-state will succeed without aid from another nation-state (unless the military sides with the insurrectionists, of course), so those who believe that the government fears an armed citizenry had better go shopping for help. And those who believe in that kind of nonsense shouldn't be owning guns at all.

I am a conservative and a major second amendment supporter. I am also appalled at how poorly current gun laws are enforced. Every few months people start a movement to ban entire classes of firearms. But when you have people who are clearly breaking federal firearm laws, circumventing the entire system for lawful gun owners, and distributing firearms with no form of checks, they get 41 months?!?

If you want to stop straw buyers as well as producing/distributing firearms without an FFL and background checks, then stick it to the criminals who are doing it . . . like 20 years mandatory minimum.

I'm a lawful firearm owner who has to go through a tremendous amount of legal paperwork, hoops, and money if I want a 14.5" rifle barrel rather than a 16" rifle barrel. If I am caught with a rifle barrel 1.5" too short, I will be heavily fined and/or imprisoned.

But they have people like this guy and the ones in Chicago who are the actual distribution points for illegal firearms, and they get 41 months or less?!? That's insane. That's like giving a drug user 15 years and the drug importer 3 years.

Before they make even one more gun control law, they need to get serious about enforcing current gun control laws with strenuous penalties. If someone is producing and distributing firearms without an FFL or following all local, state, and federal laws, they should go bye-bye for a long time.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

IANAL but I have heard an explanation that this was added in to prevent the central government from killing off the national guards of the states and usurp military power solely for itself..

Everyone who really believes the "militia will protect us against the govt" BS is as grounded in reality as the guy on acid who's seeing purple unicorns. All you need is to watch the news and see the guy with a gun on him, told the cop and still got murdered, while the cop gets a pat on the back.Also remember David Koresh, the Waco TX cult guy, how did it work out for him and his followers, all armed to the teeth?In regards to the national guards vs military, are those really gonna fight the US military? Really?? Would they shoot down the airstrikes with M16's? Might as well use bows & arrows LOL

There was a home brew company that used to do a similar thing, they had all the equipment, recipes and ingredients to make nice beers but dodged all the regulations of being a brewery by having the customer press the button to make things go.

No idea if that's a thing in the US, it's just with reasoning like Snyder's I could see a lot of other businesses caught out.

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." "